Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Muse Spark: Scaling towards personal superintelligence

ai.meta.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 392 posts

Re: Muse Spark: Scaling towards personal superintelligence

#181

Post by yalogin »

Meta is in a weird spot. They caught up late to the game and instead of releasing llama as a chat bot they open sourced it, precisely because they lost the mind share. They thought chatbot is not their product and I am sure they are regretting it now. Mark is obsessed with becoming the android of something and he poured billions into the metaverse thinking he is first and failed. He then open sourced llama and wanted to be the android of llms. He ended up enabling groq but it didn’t benefit meta directly at all. They have no revenue or mind share path from llms but continue to pour billions into it. The only 1-1 mapping is with the glasses but that is a tough fit for the company given they are extremely allergic to privqcy and security.

Not sure what this is now.

Re: Muse Spark: Scaling towards personal superintelligence

#182

Post by hackrmn »

Invictus0 wrote: post #170
hackrmn wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am simply offended. By Meta's lack of sensibilities (or ability) towards use of images on the Web while touting their new flavour of artificial intelligence as a product.

old man shouts at cloud

more like old man shouts at someone else's computer

Re: Muse Spark: Scaling towards personal superintelligence

#183

Post by spindump8930 »

vinni2 wrote: post #120
dgellow wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood why meta decided to join the race. They don’t sell compute like Google or Microsoft. Why not let others do the hard work and integrate their LLMs in your systems if needed? I assume it’s because they have Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp, Thread data and feel they should be the ones using them for training, but it’s really not obvious how having a frontier AI lab benefits their business

From what I heard Meta is spending hundreds of millions each month in Claude credits for developers. So that’s a huge saving if they have own models that match Opus.

Spending tons of money on Claude and the recent token benchmarks came WELL after Meta's huge investments in compute infrastructure for AI as well as the long history of language model development inside science divisions at the company.

Re: Muse Spark: Scaling towards personal superintelligence

#184

Post by spindump8930 »

prodigycorp wrote: post #82
throwaw12 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how do you know it's benchmaxxed?

meta's benchmaxing tendencies are well known. llama4 was mega benchmaxxed, there's nothing that suggests to me that meta's culture has changed.

Re: changes, there's been enormous turnover in AI organizations, and in theory this one was developed by a "new" org. Whether that means less or more benchmaxxing is anyone's guess.

Re: Muse Spark: Scaling towards personal superintelligence

#185

Post by spindump8930 »

signatoremo wrote: post #180
eranation wrote: post #100

So this is why Anthropic rushed the weirdest "pre-responsible-disclosure-totally-not-for-marketing" announcement yesterday? To make sure Spark doesn't steal their thunder? (Spark beats Opus 4.6 on some benchmarks...). Or did I become a bitter cynical old man.

13 days ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47538795

Yes, it's far more certain that meta released this, which is less convincing on evals, as a result of the mythos previews.

Re: Muse Spark: Scaling towards personal superintelligence

#186

Post by [deleted] »

yalogin wrote: post #181

Meta is in a weird spot. They caught up late to the game and instead of releasing llama as a chat bot they open sourced it, precisely because they lost the mind share. They thought chatbot is not their product and I am sure they are regretting it now. Mark is obsessed with becoming the android of something and he poured billions into the metaverse thinking he is first and failed. He then open sourced llama and wanted…

[deleted]

Re: Muse Spark: Scaling towards personal superintelligence

#187

Post by turtlesdown11 »

eranation wrote: post #177

Sarcasm aside, tried it (with instant mode), it's an impressive model. It nailed all the ChatGPT meme gotchas (walk to the carwash, Alice 50 brothers, upside down cup, R's in strawberry, which number is bigger, 9.11 or 9.9?) I guess all that money poaching OpenAI / Anthropic talent went somewhere... Now, would I use "Meta Muse Code" or "Muse CoWork" if I have to have a facebook account to all of my developers? Maybe…

so since they hard programmed all of the meme gotchas, they built a good model?

Re: Muse Spark: Scaling towards personal superintelligence

#188

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

I'm struck by all these independent announcements saying "look at our new model that we only spent $N Billion in acquisitions and hardware time to build and operate that's just like those other ones but this one is ours." Because if any of these companies would simply pool resources and work together, and if the government actively participated in providing funds, they'd be able to accelerate AI so much faster. It all feels incredibly wasteful. But I guess that's communism or something.

Re: Muse Spark: Scaling towards personal superintelligence

#189

Post by gritspants »

jamiequint wrote: post #123
gritspants wrote: post #121

I would like someone to tell me how stupid I am. If I were Meta/Zuck I'd open source a great model the moment my company developed it. This just looks like a pitch to investors, otherwise.

"This just looks like a pitch to investors" The goal of public companies is generally to generate profit for their investors.

Thank you for telling me how stupid I am.

Re: Muse Spark: Scaling towards personal superintelligence

#190

Post by levocardia »

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #171
Overpower0416 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol it literally took me 2s to google search "optimize image for website" and 10s to upload and get a smaller sized image. The result for that specific image is: 500kb. 85% decrease in size

An indistinguishable JPG is 170KB. An SVG would be 20KB.

CSS with a linear gradient background would be even smaller :)
Post reply on HN